In recent years a range of stakeholders have raised concerns regarding the standard of certain expert evidence relating to children in Family Law court cases.

These experts often use the title of psychologist and may be instructed to give evidence or offer diagnoses which they are not qualified to undertake.

The Family Procedure Rule Committee is now consulting on proposed changes to the Family Procedure Rules (FPR) and the associated Practice Directions (PD) for experts in family law children proceedings. These changes involve a requirement for an expert witness to be a ‘regulated expert’ which is defined in FPR 25.2.

The proposed definition of a regulated expert is set out as follows:

‘regulated expert’ means an expert who is:

1. regulated by a UK statutory body; or
2. a register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care; or
3. regulated by an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007.

This requirement would not apply to international social workers and the court would be able to give permission to any expert where there is no regulated expert available.

Consultation Questions

1. Are there any experts not accounted for in the current draft of the amendments who you feel should be considered? If yes, why do you think they should be considered?
2. Do you have any feedback on Rule 25.5A and the amendments to PD’s relating to the standards of experts, as currently drafted?
3.  Are there any other comments you would wish to make regarding the instruction of unregulated experts?

 

The consultation is available here with responses due by 6 June 2025 at FPRCSecretariat@Justice.gov.uk.

TAE will be making a response to the Family Procedure Rule Committee. We would welcome your comments and input in the preparation of our response.

We would be grateful if any comments or suggestions to help frame the TAE response be sent to us not later than 15th May.

No sooner have we posted about experts doing their job efficiently, professionally and objectively than along come two judgements where the experts involved have very definitely not come up to scratch. Both experts were guilty of expanding and exaggerating their opinions to try to benefit of their client’s case.

 

In Morriss v London Borough of Hillingdon the cause of a motorbike accident was said by one expert to be the “the most dangerous site on a distributor road he had seen in his 55 years’ experience.”. This was a risky position to take given he’d not been able to examine the relevant stretches of road as they were at the time of the accident. The judge conclude that his evidence was “inappropriately partisan and exaggerated: the evidence concerning the collision site demonstrably showed it was not the extremely dangerous site that he characterised it to be, not least that there had never been a motorcycle accident there before: “

 

In Freeman & Ors v Home Farm Ellingham a planning expert took things even further. Not only did he give evidence outside the pleaded issues, which revolved around a loss of value in a plot of land,  he generated a set of plans for a development that had never been contemplated, orchestrating, as the judge explained, the production of “what appears to be factual evidence, but that evidence was entirely self-generated by him, and his firm.” That somewhat cavalier approach may explain why in court he appears to have found it difficult to accept instructions from the judge, who records that he “insisted on answering questions that he had himself posed even when asked by the court not to.” and on one occasion ignored an instruction from  the judge not to elaborate on what should have been a simple yes or no answer.

 

In the motorbike case the evidence of an expert with a great deal of experience was in the end valueless and the planning experts evidence was ruled inadmissible (or alternatively given no weight). The moral for lawyers and clients is that expert opinions that fall too heavily on your side should be related with suspicion, if they are not credible it will be obvious in court and end costing you money and very probably your case.

As you may be aware the validity of computer evidence has been in the news recently because of the public enquiry into the Post Office and its Horizon system, which formed the basis of prosecutions  of sub-postmasters.

Earlier this year the Ministry of Justice issued a call for input on the use of evidence generated by software in criminal proceedings.The MoJ wished to understand how the current presumption concerning the admissibility of computer evidence is working in practice, and whether it is fit for purpose in the modern world. As the leading professional and accrediting body for expert witnesses in the UK and world-wide, The Academy of Experts convened a working group that included experts in IT and computer systems and a range of other areas of expertise who use computer-generated evidence in criminal matters. The group debated the questions posed by MoJ and developed its view to form a response.

It is the view of The Academy that the Presumption should remain, but it is vital to recognise its limitations and to welcome challenges to it. Issues of disclosure are central to addressing this situation. The reasoning and recommendations we made are set out in full in our response to the consultation.

We are grateful to everyone who contributed to the working group;  Mark Ballamy, Richard Emery, Mark Holdsworth, William Hooper, David Tonks, Gill Hunt, PeterMcArthur, Nigel Young, Jawad Hassan Zadeh

 

Once more unto the breach dear friends? That’s not a phrase  you’ll hear often in normal life but lawyers, and by extension experts,  spend a lot of time talking about breaches. Of course they don’t mean holes in the walls of a besieged city as Henry V did, they’re referring to the many and various ways a client can be said to have broken the rules set out in a contract.

Experts are often called upon to identify how bad a breach is so its worth being aware of the main phrases that are used;

Minor breaches are fairly obvious, the term refers to smaller breaches that only affect part of the goods or services whereas material breaches are much more serious and involve failure to fulfil an important part of the contract. They can result in serious consequences for the breaching party, though so you’ll need to discuss with your legal team what the definition of ‘material breach’ is for a particular contract before expressing any opinions on the subject.

At the extreme end a party can be in repudiatory breach if they are deemed to have walked away from or refused to perform the contract. If that happens the other party is entitled to stop performing their end of the bargain, whether that’s paying for services or doing their own part of the job. An example would be a builder  walking off a job and refusing to work, though we’d be interested to hear about real world examples from members!

For more information and training on the role of the expert see https://academyofexperts.org/events/

Our picture is of course from the BBC’s Hollow Crown version of Henry V starring Tom Hiddlestone.

 

Easter Eggs for Judges. While many children are expecting chocolate Easter Eggs next weekend, in the IT world an Easter Egg means a hidden feature or message left in a program with the aim of surprising and delighting users who find it.

Although reports on experts often focus on where we’ve gone wrong the vast majority of experts do a good job and are rightly recognised for this by the courts. This is just a selection of comments made by judges so far in 2025.

“I found him to be a model expert witness.  He was extremely well qualified and understood the area fully and in depth .  He was very clear, concise and fair in his answers.”

“Both experts were knowledgeable, fair and sought at all times to assist the court by their evidence. For that reason, the matters in issue between them were very limited.”

“I found her to be a careful, fair and straightforward witness who made appropriate concessions.”

“I am very grateful to the experts for their careful consideration of the expert issues and their co-operation in producing materials to assist the court to determine the numerous technical issues in this case.”

“Both of these experts were cross-examined in some detail about the conclusions they had reached and I am satisfied that their opinions were cogent, balanced and informed by all the available and relevant professional records.”

Clearly these, and the many other experts who have been mentioned in positive terms, were acting as ‘Easter Eggs’ in the best possible way.

Our picture comes from https://thebridgeit.com/2023/04/06/the-10-best-easter-eggs-in-tech/

Spring is a good time for fresh starts so when better to check that your online profiles are looking good? As an experiment, why not just type your name and ‘Academy of Experts’ into Google to see how you look to the outside world. Ask  yourself ‘What would I think about this person if I was a solicitor looking to instruct a new, unknown expert?’  Is the profile up to date, does it contain the right qualifications and recent (not ancient) cases? Does the summary tell you instantly what sort of cases will be right for this expert? If the answer to any of those questions is “hmm, maybe”, then you have some work to do.

Alongside your Academy profile most people will also check a new expert on LinkedIn, so try the same exercise and search for yourself. Does your LinkedIn profile show that you’re an expert witness, does it include your Academy Membership and a link to your Academy profile to prove it? [Hint: it will be at https://academyofexperts.org/search-register/profile/firstname-lastname]. If you add Academy membership as an employment you’ll also be listed on the Academy page, so people will find you there if they start their search on LinkedIn

And finally, if you’re interested in acting in Arbitrations why not take up the complementary profile offered to Academy members by Jus Mundi. Just click to request a free trial and they will check you’re an Academy member and set it up for you.

 

 

 

Only common sense? Now may not be the best time to refer to Thomas Paine’s advice to Americans that they should seek independence from Britain, but a keen understanding of what common sense means is important for an expert.

It’s trite to say that experts are there to assist the court on matters within their expertise but it tends to irritate judges if experts provide opinions that tell them what they already know. If you’re being asked to give opinions about matters that are really common sense it’s important to stop and consider if this is really necessary.

In some recent cases a good deal of time, and client’s money, seems to have been spent on expert evidence that really wasn’t needed. As Meade J observed in a patent case involving Motorola and Ericsson, “The experts gave their evidence very fairly and it was not submitted to the contrary. However, with a few exceptions, and this is not the fault of the experts themselves, I found the expert evidence unhelpful and a waste of time. For example, questions were asked to establish that companies in this field like certainty if they can get it, and that patent injunctions are bad for handset manufacturers. I did not need experts to tell me this. “

Similarly in an inheritance tax hearing the Tribunal considered that expert advice on the running of a property business did not assist them, “this is not an area where particular specialist expertise and experience is required to understand the evidence given by those involved in the business.”

Experts and lawyers should take care to avoid wasting time in this way and experts in particular should remember that an irritated judge is unlikely to be of benefit to them or their client.

Summer events round-up. Now the clocks have ‘sprung forward’ and the promise of spring is in the air it seems a good time for a reminder of our events programme for the next few months. As well as our program of training for new experts (plus advanced training on Expert Determination for established experts) the summer programme includes  plenty of in-person opportunities to learn and catch up with other experts;

16^th May Golf Day

20^th May  Expert Witnesses & Conflicts of Interest

11^th June President’s Dinner

17^th June London Legal Walk

1-2nd July Expert Determination (Online)

25th July Gray’s Inn Garden Party

It’s also worth remembering that the first week in June sees London International Disputes Week taking place, with a wide range of events including discussions on AI, construction & aviation disputes and the competing claims of litigation vs arbitration. As always there are opportunities to learn and meet with lawyers from all over the world. Experts who work with in-house counsel rather than external lawyers might also find Crafty Counsel’s conference in the same week useful, the agenda is packed with short sessions on a wide range of topcis including eomployment, privacy, shareholder disputes & construction.

Our picture is from Airedale Springs, The History of Springs in Watchmaking.

Many of us will remember being instructed to show our working in Math exams in the hope of garnering at least some marks for our work even if the eventual answer was way off beam. Simply giving the answer runs the risk of all credit being lost even if its only wrong because of a tiny arithmetical slip.

The same approach is essential for experts, while the courts take note of qualifications and experience in assessing  expert evidence the acid test is whether an expert’s approach to providing an opinion stands up to scrutiny. If the court cannot understand your method then they will be less inclined to take a leap of faith in accepting your answers.

A recent example (Port of Sheerness Ltd v Swire Shipping PTE) involved two experts asked to estimate how long it would take to remove a cargo of plywood from a ship so that the cost of an extended stay in port could be calculated. The judge commented that “The experts were both impressive and well-qualified witnesses. The difference between them was derived from the methodology they employed. Mr Pope employed what I might call a “time and motion” model in which he broke the discharging operation down into its constituent elements and expected durations, making allowance for variable factors. Mr Daniells employed a more general approach based upon experience. “

Despite attempts to criticise the more detailed  approach the answer it gave was closer to contemporaneous estimates and the judge was not persuaded to accept the much higher estimate that was based on a method that was “definitely not a science”. The detailed method had the added benefit of allowing the judge to make a modest adjustment based on issues that emerged during the hearing.

For information and advice on what a expert report should cover see https://academyofexperts.org/users-of-experts/what-is-an-expert-report/

Our picture is from LiberationMath

 

Litigation deadlines are unforgiving and a common gripe among experts is being given instructions too late, with not enough time to do the job properly. The difficulty of course is that we all want to help our client and instructing solicitors, which makes it hard to turn down jobs at short notice.

A recent case (MVL Properties (2017) Ltd v The Leadmill Ltd) should highlight to lawyers how they risk jeopardising their client’s case by last minute instructions. Two experts gave evidence on the costs to refurbish and re-equip a nightclub and music venue, but one had clearly not had time to do a thorough job.

As the judge explained “He very candidly said that his original report was not his best work because it was rushed: he was told at 11am that his final report was required by 4pm. I note that the report was produced after the time specified by the court and only admitted in evidence as a result of an application for relief from sanctions. I do not suggest that Mr Sullivan was responsible for that time pressure: but its existence is apparent from his report.“

Unsurprisingly, the more coherent report of his opposite number was largely preferred. The moral of the tale for lawyers is try to give your experts time to do their job and to experts, think very carefully before accepting ‘urgent’ instructions, you’re the one who will have to explain the results!

Our picture is from disneyclips.com